CRC and Sprawl


The Oregonian looks at the “sprawl angle” of the Columbia River Crossing:

As Metro Council president David Bragdon sees it, the challenge is how to build a bridge “without 100,000 people thinking they can move to Battle Ground.”


0 responses to “CRC and Sprawl”

  1. David Bragdon the challenge is how to build a bridge “without 100,000 people thinking they can move to Battle Ground.”
    JK: What’s wrong with moving to Battle Ground?

    What’s wrong with people living where they prefer?

    What’s wrong with people raising their standard of living by moving out of a state whose artificial shortage of land has doubled the cost of housing?

    Does David think he knows best as to where you should live? (Sounds like some republican bible thumper telling others how to live)

    Thanks
    JK

  2. There’s nothing wrong with moving to Battle Ground. Battle Ground is a great community.

    I just don’t think Portland should pay 1.5 billion dollars so people can move there.

  3. Jim, I love that you take such pride in being the denier of choice for the metro area. Bravo to you for being up at the crack of dawn to get first post too. It’s obvious you want someone to take your bait so I’ll go ahead and do it…uh hem…

    Geez JK there is nothing wrong with living in Battle Ground except that all that ridiculous long distance commuting (presumably to Portland) will only contribute to global warming!!! Hijack the thread and deny away.

    I live in Vancouver and work in Portland. I hate it. I hate the commute… I hate that so much of my time is spent on the road rather than with my kids… I hate how much money I spend on gas and transit. I hate it. And yes JK I hate the contribution I make to GW and pollution in general. The problem is the sorry economy of Vancouver and Clark Co. We’ve been nursing from the swollen teat of Portland so long that all there is up here is food joints and retail. But why work to build jobs when it’s so much easier to clear more land and build houses to accommodate the masses that head south every day. I live here and I hope they don’t build a new bridge. I hope they get MAX up here and a better bike crossing and toll the bridge So there are options. I hope WA spends whatever it’s share would’ve been on business development in Clark Co. Create a place where people can live AND work. I would love that.

  4. People prefer to live in places where there is great access infrastructure and investment. People also like to live places where they can get to their jobs without too much fuss.

    Thats why a certain number of people DON’T choose to live in Battle Ground right now. Build the bridge, and Battle Ground gets more attractive.

    So, its backwards reasoning to say that we need to build the bridge because people want to live there.

  5. [moderator mode on]

    Ken –

    I appreciate your frustration, but be careful not to diverge into personal attacks.

    [moderator mode off]

  6. I’m really starting to think its time to kill the new I-5 bridge and build a parallel local road bridge with LRT line and bike path/sidewalk. At least get MAX to downtown Vancouver where it is a logical terminus and connects with the local C-Tran hub. As for taking it further in Clark County that is something that Clark County needs to decide on.

  7. I’m really starting to think its time to kill the new I-5 bridge and build a parallel local road bridge with LRT line and bike path/sidewalk. At least get MAX to downtown Vancouver where it is a logical terminus and connects with the local C-Tran hub. As for taking it further in Clark County that is something that Clark County needs to decide on.

    I tend to agree, but Clark County wouldn’t give one red cent toward this plan, and would likely try to stop it.

  8. The main thrust of the article is that we(?) need to increase capacity across the Columbia for freight.
    If that’s so, why not focus just on that? Build a new two-lane supplemental bridge for freight (as well as light rail, pedestrians and bicycles). Then ban trucks from the existing bridges, and require them to use the new bridge (charging them a high toll, of course, sufficient to pay off most of the cost of building the roadway). And use tolls on the existing bridges to control automobile congestion and discourage commuting.
    We get a new light rail line, and decreased congestion for freight as well as for cars.
    So – can anyone tell me why this isn’t a reasonable solution?

  9. I think this is the issue many of us knew would rear its ugly head. The CRC process has developed in a way that seems incongruous with the realization that we can’t build our way out of congestion.

    The project planners make the same tired arguments:
    1. We need to “ease the passage of freight”
    2. We need to “accommodate expected population growth”
    3. The project won’t increase auto emissions and, in fact, could help decrease it
    4. Carbon monoxide emissions would fall
    5. The new bridge will improve public safety as it reduces crashes

    Of course, these same arguments have been used for nearly every freeway expansion project built in recent history, and they rarely end up being true.

    1. We need to “ease the passage of freight”
    Of course, this is not the primary reason for this project. If it were, the design would be markedly different. For example, we could build 2 more lanes and designate them freight only. Or, we could use value pricing to ensure capacity is preserved for freight. Or, we could upgrade freight rail alternatives. But, since the real reason is the political pressure by those avoiding property taxes and land use controls to have an easier (and free) ride into work, the project is a massive SOV capacity expansion. This project will only marginally improve freight movement, because they will stil be stuck in SOV-induced congestion a few miles down the line. Even this benefit will be gone in 5 years as SOVs fill the space.

    2. We need to “accommodate expected population growth”
    Of course, this growth will occur far more rapidly with a wider bridge. As the economist Cortright notes, “If we build more capacity there, what we’re saying is we want more people to live in Clark County and commute to jobs in Portland”. This violates Oregon’s commitment to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention rational land use planning.

    3. The project won’t increase auto emissions and, in fact, could help decrease it
    It is surprising to me that this argument is still used. If this were true, Los Angeles would have the cleanest air in the country. I’m really not sure how professionals make such statements and get to keep their credibility. I guess they’ll say almost anything to earn those fees. Do they really believe it?

    4. Carbon monoxide emissions would fall
    The only way emissions will fall is cleaner fuels and cleaner vehicles, which are technology needs unrelated to this project. The congestion will move, and any improvements will be eliminated within 5 years as people adjust their living patterns to take advantage of the new capacity. Since the congestion will occur with or without the project, emissions will be greater in the long run because more people will drive, and more people will now be stuck in the congestion.

    5. The new bridge will improve public safety as it reduces crashes
    As Mr. Litman astutely points out, “They probably could come up with a $250 million project that could make the bridges safer”. This would involve addressing the merge/diverge issue – an obvious problem for which the best solution is not adding more thru lanes. Congestion does contribute to crashes, but as we know, the congestion will not disappear, it will move. So, instead of crashing into each other on the bridge, now they will do it in North Portland. The engineers will see this as success, and insist that the same needs to be done in the new crash corridor. Process repeats until we are back at the bridge…..

  10. “The new bridge will improve public safety as it reduces crashes”

    It should be pointed out that it may indeed reduce crashes, but 61% of the crashes now are simple fender benders that don’t result in anyone ever seeing a doctor. Those are “congestion” type crashes, they are common in stop and go traffic, but they are only a big deal to people that own a body shop… There was 3 fatal accidents in the bridge influence area between 2002 and 2006. (0.1% of the accidents: a very very low number.) If you decreases congestion, you will indeed reduce the number of crashes, but the crashes that occur will be more deadly because they occur at higher speeds.

  11. Governments on both sides of the river need to lift the restrictions on ownership of private for-hire transportation comapnaies, be they cabs, ride sharing taxis, jitneys, bus companies, full time corporation or part-time mom and pop businesses. Such actions might just provide people with an alternative to driving as the cost of gas gets higher. But I doubt that’ll sell around here. Way to many special interest involved.

    MHW

  12. Good point Unit regarding the stalking horse of “easing freight transport.” If the concern is about freight to and from points outside the metro area, that freight is probably already using I 205; if it isn’t, maybe it should. As foir freight that orginates or terminates in the metro area, there’s a simple fix: designate a lae for freight only. Maybe if we designate two lanes for freight, Clark County might see its way to supporting a MAX line. Nah, I’m probably fantasizing, they love their SUVs more than that…..

  13. If the concern is about freight to and from points outside the metro area, that freight is probably already using I 205; if it isn’t, maybe it should.

    Problem 1) I-205 gets pretty bad traffic, so I-5 would have to be in pretty bad shape for it to make sense because of…

    Problem 2) I-5 from Boones Ferry in Wilsonville to 179th in Ridgefield is 32.0 miles (per Google) on I-5. On I-205 it’s 41.1 miles. The extra 9.1 miles means that I-205 would have to be a bit more clear than I-5 to give any real time savings.

    Unfortunately I-205 was not planned as an efficient bypass by any means, as it adds significant out of direction travel by heading southerly on a “northbound” route.

    And to address: If this were true, Los Angeles would have the cleanest air in the country.

    Why then are we choosing their current growth model of not building new highway capacity and instead investing only in transit?

    San Diego would be a better example than LA, since they’re building a lot of new freeway projects (bottleneck removals and HOT lanes, to be fair), but they’ve also mostly improved air quality while doing so by balancing investment into transit, roads, and freeway improvements.

    Hmmmm…

  14. Oh, and a from the article reference:

    It’s reasonable to expect fatalities to grow, as high-speed traffic grows, Litman says. But most transportation engineers “refuse to recognize” that reality, he says.

    “That opinion,” would been more responsible journalism.

    He doesn’t take into account that areas with 9 foot lanes have much higher fatality rates than the standard 12 foot lanes, areas with shoulders have much lower fatality rates than things like the bridge with no shoulders, and he conveniently ignored the bridge’s design features that result in a mix of vehicles going from 35 mph to 85 mph.

    Yep, it’s not legal to go 85 mph, but with no shoulders and limited visibility it’s much more difficult for police to enforce traffic laws on the bridge, and I do see people who are probably nearing in on that speed.

    Great read, and I liked the point made about the high tolls, transit options, and safety being a pretty good reason to build and not need to expect induced sprawl from the project.

  15. I live in Vancouver and work in Portland. I hate it. I hate the commute… I hate that so much of my time is spent on the road rather than with my kids… I hate how much money I spend on gas and transit. I hate it. And yes JK I hate the contribution I make to GW and pollution in general. The problem is the sorry economy of Vancouver and Clark Co. We’ve been nursing from the swollen teat of Portland so long that all there is up here is food joints and retail.

    1. If you hate living in Vancouver, why don’t you move to Portland? (Or get a job in Vancouver?)

    2. If you hate the commute, why did you choose a job that is so far away from your home?

    3. If you hate how much money you spend on bus, why not take a C-Tran bus?

    4. There are a number of major employers located in Clark County that are good paying employers – Hewlett Packard’s “Portland” location is actually in Clark County as one example. The BPA and the VA have facilities in Vancouver. And numerous other employers. There are plenty of low-wage “fast food jobs” in Portland as well.

    If Clark County wants to pay for their light rail line, that’s fine. I see no reason why I, as a resident of the Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District, Metro, the City of Portland, and the State of Oregon, need to subsidize the CHOICE of Vancouver residents to use light rail, while my bus service continues to be neglected and underinvested upon. I don’t see Vancouver paying a “TriMet Bus Tax” yet I’m paying one and seeing my dollars flowing north.

    I CHOOSE to live in Portland. I CHOOSE to work in Portland. I DID NOT CHOOSE to subsidize Vancouver.

  16. Dave said:
    “He doesn’t take into account that areas with 9 foot lanes have much higher fatality rates than the standard 12 foot lanes, areas with shoulders have much lower fatality rates than things like the bridge with no shoulders, and he conveniently ignored the bridge’s design features that result in a mix of vehicles going from 35 mph to 85 mph.”

    There has been 3 fatal accidents in 5 years, (0.6 fatal accidents per year.) To put that into perspective, there were 16 fatal accidents on 82nd Ave in 2005 alone. 82nd is longer than 5 miles (about 10,) but it sees far less traffic, and yet has far more accidents… So if this bridge is about safety, and the going rate for saving less than one life a year is $4.2B, where is the $112B to improve 82nd? (And also where is the $42B for bicycle safety in this city?)

  17. 82nd is longer than 5 miles (about 10,) but it sees far less traffic, and yet has far more accidents…

    82nd has pedestrians and bicycles allowed, try again.

  18. As I have previously stated: a far more cost effective option for all would be to build a new six lane, three in each direction, bypass bridge for I-5 through traffic only and then use the existing two bridges in a manner that dedicates two lanes in each direction for local and interchange traffic for Hayden Island and SR 500, and one lane in each direction for the selected transit option bringing transit down to ground level. Any financing model that includes user fees must include user fees for all modes of transport. Therefore, if tolls charged, equity requires they must be spread across all modes of transport with bicyclists paying at least half of the motor vehicle toll and transit riders paying an extra farebox surcharge for using the crossing at the very least equal to one-fourth of the motor vehicle toll.

    Furthermore, the government be it the City of Portland, the State of Oregon or Washington, Clark County or the City of Vancouver should not be telling people or manipulating where people choose to live or work, or decide their personal choice of mobility.

  19. Bob R. Says:

    [moderator mode on]

    Ken –

    I appreciate your frustration, but be careful not to diverge into personal attacks.

    [moderator mode off]

    I think this is a bit too strong. Ken hadn’t made any personal or ad hominem attacks. Jim’s post, however, was much stronger and plainly emotional in tone.

    Jim’s posting history and continuous role of troll diverting from threads’ topics reduces this site’s value irreparably. I wish there was more moderation of him — both from himself, and from the official moderator.

  20. “Can we compare accident and fatality rates between the I-5 bridge and the I-205 bridge?”

    CRC didn’t sum up the I-205 data in a nice little pdf for me, so that was a little harder, but the equivalent 5 miles on I-205 would be from where I-84E splits off to the Mill Plain Interchange, and I pulled that up on FARS…

    2002: 1: Between SR-14 and Millplain
    2004: 1: Near Sandy
    2005: 1: Near Airport way.

    There are 2 more fatal accidents that happened “in Washington State on I-205” (1 each in 2003 and 2004,) but don’t list the location any clearer than that. Statistically, 0.4 of those happened within 2.5 miles of the state line, but we’ll ignore those for now…

    So 3 fatal accidents in 5 years, exactly the same as I-5.

    “82nd has pedestrians and bicycles allowed, try again.”

    One of the ones “in Washington State on I-205” involved a pedestrian too. Not that I’m condoning walking on the freeway or anything, but sometimes people’s cars break down or something and they don’t have a choose…

  21. Robb –

    Neither JK nor Ken crossed a line, but I didn’t want it to devolve further.

    JK’s “bible thumper” bit was indeed personal, but it was directed at a public official, rather than at a participant in this thread.

    (Of course, we have public officials and candidates who comment here, and when actively engaged in conversation, I expect a higher level of civility.)

    And, JK’s post (this time) didn’t take us down a global-warming-debate diversion, he was responding directly to a quote from the original post — so I so no reason not to let it stand.

    I don’t think he’s correct in his characterizations, but he hasn’t strayed too far from the topic.

    But I will keep your comments in mind going down the road.

  22. Matthew –

    Thanks for the statistics for I-205.

    I see everyone’s up late! At least I’m working while posting, or posting while working… :-) (Babysitting a server move for a client — the joys of telecommuting.)

  23. Furthermore, the government be it the City of Portland, the State of Oregon or Washington, Clark County or the City of Vancouver should not be telling people or manipulating where people choose to live or work, or decide their personal choice of mobility.

    This is correct. Which is why oppose building the bridge. Why should the government force us to drive cars, when there are much better forms of transportation.

  24. To paraphrase Dave:
    [LA’s] current growth model [is] not building new highway capacity and instead investing only in transit

    Oh, really? Is this a transit project?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Toro_Y
    I suppose at 26 lanes wide, that’s lots of lanes for buses.

    What about this one?
    http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/route5/is5_mip.shtml

    Plus, they’ve recently completed the Foothills Tollway, the San Joaquin Tollway, and the I-210 extension. I’m sure their air is pure as a mountain breeze.

    And I’m sure the folks who doubt global warming and believe in a flat earth and a geocentric universe will doubt this article too:
    http://www.planetizen.com/node/17517

    Or, it could be – just maybe – that every freeway widening simply spawns the need for another. You would think that after more than 50 years of trying this, we’d have realized this by now.

  25. Unit — The Los Angeles area has the lowest roadway-and-freeway-lane-to-resident ratio in the whole country, while also being one of the most dense in terms of population [several times more density then Portland]. Just because they HAVE freeways doesn’t mean anything, they don’t have enough lane miles to support their population.

    There have been tons of studies on this to show this is the case.

    There is even a Metro published study with someone admitting that Los Angeles is something Portland ought to replicate in terms of population density, [lack of] roadways, and transit investment.

    Who would have thunk it? High density + not enough roads = more congestion & pollution!

  26. Arguments about density as purely a raw number aren’t very useful unless development patterns are also taken into account. A city with people living in tight clusters of population but with lots of parks, rivers, other amenities nearby, can appear less dense as a raw number than a city with a dispersed population but no large open spaces.

  27. Or, it could be that Anthony is just making stuff up, as he often does. We know LA is dense, but the other claims are begging for sources.

    So Anthony, do you have a source for all of your claims???

  28. I want to see that source too, here is the data I can find:
    http://www.psrc.org/publications/pubs/trends/t13jun00.pdf

    New York has .382 miles of freeway-lanes per 1000 people
    LA has .426 miles of freeway-lane per 1000 people

    Portland/Vancouver has .515 miles of freeway-lane per 1000 people according to those numbers, but the population estimate is only 1.34M, compared to about 2M according to the 2000 census. (New York and LA’s population numbers are quite a bit closer,) so if you recalculate based off of that, we’ve got .345 miles of freeway-lanes per 1000 people. (For what it is worth, our population was 1.34M about the time that I-205 was completed…)

  29. Heres a good link, but with older numbers [1999]

    http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-tti99ratio.htm

    LA isn’t the worse, but its close to the bottom.

    In 1999, Portland actually had more freeway lane miles per 1000 people then Los Angeles. Kansas City tops the list with the most freeway-lane-miles-per-1000, whereas Las Vegas was the worse.

  30. that every freeway widening simply spawns the need for another. You would think that after more than 50 years of trying this, we’d have realized this by now.

    What’s ironic is that in Portland’s Light Rail experiment that we’ve built light rail lines – only to be forced to widen the parallelling freeway shortly after.

    Banfield MAX – widened I-5 to I-205 concurrent with MAX construction.

    I-205 to Troutdale, widened in late 1990s despite MAX parallelling to the south.

    Westside MAX – U.S. 26 was widened from Sylvan to Cornell Road in early 2000s after MAX built; Sunset Highway to be widened to Cornelius Pass within next few years.

    Interstate MAX – discussion to widen I-5 north of Lombard.

    Airport MAX – Airport Way West has been widened by an additional lane.

    I thought MAX was supposed to provide additional choice so that people wouldn’t have to drive, but in each instance of MAX construction – highways have had to be widened after MAX was built. However there are NO PLANS to widen I-5 south of Portland, the one corridor that has no plans for MAX in the near future, despite the availability of developable land in Tualatin, West Linn, Sherwood and Wilsonville.

    On the other hand, U.S. 26 was widened out to Banks years ago – yet neither Banks nor North Plains became “suburbia”.

  31. To paraphrase Dave:
    [LA’s] current growth model [is] not building new highway capacity and instead investing only in transit

    LA meant Los Angeles City, not County or Region. That matters as you read on.

    Oh, really? Is this a transit project? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Toro_Y
    I suppose at 26 lanes wide, that’s lots of lanes for buses.

    The El Toro Y, which I’ve driven through many, many times, is not in Los Angeles County or City. It’s in Irvine, Orange County, California. Both areas are members of SCAG (Southern California Association of Gov’ts, not at all like Metro), and that’s all they have in common.

    What about this one?
    http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/route5/is5_mip.shtml

    Okay, Los Angeles County, not City. La Mirada, Commerce, Downy, Santa Fe Springs and Norwalk. And Buena Park, in Orange County. The project ends a few hundred feet from the city limits.

    Plus, they’ve recently completed the Foothills Tollway, the San Joaquin Tollway, and the I-210 extension. I’m sure their air is pure as a mountain breeze.

    Again, Orange County, Orange County, and Riverside County. LA’s last major freeway was I-105 in 1993. Some truck routes, like CA-103 and CA-47 are planned for improvements, and the city of Long Beach is looking at I-710, but my point was that the city of LA is not looking to expand SOV freeway capacity.

    Just look at the Orange, Red, Yellow, Purple and Gold lines in LA. Or the Green Line, part of the I-105 project. Yes, they serve the suburbs by extension, but LA invested in making each one work as well.

    And Matthew, thanks for the data. It makes me think that if I-5 were safer but less congested we’d probably stay near 3. Just like I-205. Of course, margin of error, pedestrians, wind gusts, rainfall, etc all can throw the numbers off when it’s as low as 3.

    Either way, I think it validates that possibly a safer (widers lanes, shoulers, etc) and less congested I-5 might not lead to higher fatality rates.

  32. Interstate MAX – discussion to widen I-5 north of Lombard.

    I thought they were supposed to break ground this year on that one?

  33. despite the availability of developable land in Tualatin, West Linn, Sherwood and Wilsonville.

    Since you mention those places, you should know that I-205 was just widened by one lane for 3 miles in each direction, from I-5 to Stafford Road.

    It wasn’t all that long ago when I-5 was widened with new add-lanes north of Wilsonville.

  34. What’s ironic is that in Portland’s Light Rail experiment that we’ve built light rail lines – only to be forced to widen the parallelling freeway shortly after. […] Westside MAX – U.S. 26 was widened from Sylvan to Cornell Road in early 2000s after MAX built; Sunset Highway to be widened to Cornelius Pass within next few years.

    You can keep posting this, but it doesn’t make it true. The US 26 projects were conceived in conjunction with westside MAX as a larger westside access improvement program. They both started in the mid-90’s, but they’ve just drawn out all the highway phases so that they’re still doing highway projects 10 years after westside MAX was finished. ODOT takes years (even decades) to plan and fund anything approaching a large project.

    This myth has been debunked on this site before.

  35. Banfield MAX – widened I-5 to I-205 concurrent with MAX construction

    I’ve heard this before but never quite understood it. As the picture linked below appears to show, the Banfield was built as 6 lanes. It is still 6 lanes.
    http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?&c=dgebg&a=ggajf
    Perhaps they added some aux lanes?

    Whatever they did, both projects were part of the deal to cancel the Mt. Hood Freeway. As we know, politics often determine what projects are built, and MAX is little different in this regard.

  36. Thanks Unit for the link. I saw the pictures of a desolate lloyd district a couple years and I was trying to remember where I saw them.

  37. The US 26 projects were conceived in conjunction with westside MAX as a larger westside access improvement program.

    And your assertion that you debunk my point doesn’t disprove anything – it continues to prove that despite the addition of high capacity light rail transit, that expanding highway capacity continues to be a need.

    It wasn’t all that long ago when I-5 was widened with new add-lanes north of Wilsonville.

    It’s been six lanes for as long as I can recall.

    That’d put it back into the 1970s. And yet there is plenty of undeveloped, sprawl-less land down south. I don’t see the Aurora/Donald exit becoming overrun with McMansions. (Yet the irony is that many light-rail supporters who support commuter rail to Salem actually support a commuter rail alignment that is THREE MILES west of downtown Woodburn, ENCOURAGING SPRAWL to spread west of I-5. And doesn’t WES ENCOURAGE SPRAWL by developing open farmland in Wilsonville under the guise of “transit-oriented development”, by building transit to the sprawl?

  38. And doesn’t WES ENCOURAGE SPRAWL by developing open farmland in Wilsonville under the guise of “transit-oriented development”, by building transit to the sprawl?

    That’s one of my concerns. That, and it opens Tualatin and the surrounding southern cities for excessive growth due to extra planning options.

    It’s much like encouraging 100,000 people to live in Battle Ground.

  39. Speaking for myself, sprawl isn’t a problem if the transportation is handled by well-designed transit (in which case it usually isn’t sprawl at all – transit-oriented land use is ALWAYS dense and comfortable for people). The problem is when it’s auto-oriented, it creates congestion. In fact, the people who have chosen to live in Battle Ground and suburban Clark County are responsible for the traffic mess on I-5 and I-205. Similarly, those that choose to live in Salem, Woodburn, or Wilsonville and commute to downtown Portland are responsible for the mess on I-5 south.

    It’s more about people making good choices than discouraging sprawl. Of course, sprawl encourages (requires?) bad choices, so I suppose it’s a chicken-and-egg problem.

    Erik, your rail alignment for Salem commuter rail seems the most sensible to me (I think you suggested WES – Hwy 51 – UPRR alignment). In addition to Salem and Portland metro, it could serve Hubbard, Woodburn, Gervais, and Brooks. These are communities that could support additional growth. Families where one spouse works in Portland and one in Salem could be ideally served in these communities with commuter rail. To me, this is not sprawl – it is making good choices.

    Transit-oriented development is not sprawl. It doesn’t waste land and it doesn’t create unresolvable traffic problems.

  40. without 100,000 people thinking they can move to Battle Ground

    They really ought to consider why people are moving to far away places in the first place. Portland is overpriced for what you get – a tiny shoebox and overcrowded conditions. They should instead encourage development in Oregon, in places like Wilsonville, Woodburn, Salem, Albany, etc. outside of Portland instead of chasing away opportunities to Washington. Portland is landlocked and cannot grow any more except to continue cramming more people into nooks and crannies. Not everyone, especially people with kids who want them to be able to enjoy open spaces, want to live like that. I enjoyed living there for a little while to get my taste of city life but quickly outgrew it.

  41. As Jane Jacobs explained eloquently a generation ago we must not confuse density and over crowding. Density is a measurement of units per area, and may take many forms. It is most often measured by people per area or housing units per area. Crowding is a condition of having too many people in a single defined space, like a dwelling or sidewalk.

    While density alone does not produce healthy communities, density makes an urban area safer by simply putting more people in a neighborhood and more people on the streets more often. More eyes on the street makes streets safer for everyone. More feet on the street also supports local businesses and reduces the need to own and drive a car (a very hazardous activity).

  42. Transit-oriented development is not sprawl. It doesn’t waste land and it doesn’t create unresolvable traffic problems.

    Well… Transit causes some TOD, yes. But how much does having that town center make people want to live on the suburbs of it?

    By limiting land use to certain areas serving the TOD, you can make it work, but you can also make it fail. Without enough customers, the retail parts of TOD don’t work.

    We have to plan ahead for the fact that a new urban center will almost require some suburban centers to grow as well, or else it won’t have the demand needed to keep the service sector industries there.

    Without service sector businesses, it devalues the residential uses, because they have to drive farther to get to services.

    TOD is a great component, but we have to figure out ways to either identify demand better (and avoid Ikea) through not proposing ideas that won’t fly, or we have to admit some sprawl will happen with every transportation project as our population grows.

    Why is it so bad to support transit and roads at the same time? Cars aren’t the evil, their engines are. That can be corrected. Just like Transit isn’t evil, poorly coordinated transit is. That also can be corrected.

  43. TOD can be sprawl IF it develops previously unused land, unnecessarily.

    Orenco Village, in my opinion, was a form of sprawl – it used up farmland, is not a “live, work and play” neighborhood, and sprouted hundreds of housing units, in addition to numerous streets and parking lots (notably the TriMet owned and operated parking lot to serve the MAX station).

    Meanwhile, there is still plenty of land surrounding the Beaverton TC area – an area that was already developed, and could be better re-developed to increase density around the MAX station. Could the shopping centers not be rebuilt as mixed-use developments, and by consolidating parking into smaller parking garages while re-using much of the parking lot? What about the vacant land located to the north of the transit center? Why isn’t that land being used?

    Unit – you’re right, I’d much rather see the UP mainline used for commuter rail because it accesses each of the towns’ city centers. From Portland to Salem it would connect downtown Milwaukie, Oregon City, Canby, Hubbard, Woodburn, Gervais, and Salem. The OE line serves Beaverton, Tigard and Tualatin (there isn’t much of a “downtown” in Wilsonville) – but south of Wilsonville to Salem it is well removed from any community (save for Donald). An OE based commuter rail station WILL create sprawl, period.

    In Salem, both the OE and SP are downtown, and each has benefits and drawbacks. Most notably, the OE line has a very poor alignment through North Salem, and involves running down the middle of a street. Using the SP line would use a much better, wider and safer right-of-way to an existing Amtrak train station (thus eliminating the need to build a train station) – although Salem would need to improve its local transit offerings and make sure that there is decent service from the Amtrak station to downtown. This could be done rather easily with a circulator bus that connects the train station, Willamette University, the State Capitol, the transit mall, and Salem Centre.

    Getting back to the CRC and Sprawl issue – Vancouver is already there. How is widening the bridge going to suddenly introduce sprawl – we’ve had a freeway to Banks and North Plains and it hasn’t sprawled. (Only recently has new development been built in Banks.) Highway 99W was widened to Newberg in what, the 1960s? And only in the last 10 years has Sherwood exploded with growth.

    What’s most surprising is the calls for commuter rail to be extended to Hood River – 65 miles east of downtown. If we’re anti-sprawl, why would we even consider such a foolish idea? If our goal is to stop sprawl, we need to first address housing in the central city, and make quality, decent, and affordable housing (by affordable I do not mean subsidized, I mean housing that anyone can afford), as well as have jobs for all in the same area. Until Portland gets serious about this, there will continue to be demand for housing away from the central city – and there will be a responsibility to provide access between housing and jobs.

  44. Erik,

    I like your idea about utilizing the UP line. Why doesn’t Amtrak just offer more throughway buses, like hourly, between Portland and Eugene. When ridership builds on that and people start using, then start discussing rail. With the prices of steel skyrocketing they probably won’t be able to afford building more LRT.

  45. Coming off of the Amtrak 509 from Seattle almost two hours ago, it was good to see a full train out of Seattle, and about half of the passengers in coach were continuing south of Portland.

    However I also know that this is unusual – this train (Saturday evening) is usually much more lightly patronized (the Sunday evening train is much more busier) and this is the weekend after Spring Break in Oregon.

    I agree – by providing frequent (hourly) bus service between Portland and Eugene, with real commuter bus service between Portland and Salem (not the current arrangement that requires THREE separate busses to get from downtown Portland to downtown Salem) that is similar to Sound Transit’s Seattle-Tacoma service – this would provide a real service that would open the door towards commuter rail; while building the demand at a much, much lower entry cost.

    Commuter Rail between Portland and Salem would cost about $300 million or more before a single train turns a wheel.

    Commuter Bus between Portland and Salem could be started for about $5 million.

  46. There is commuter rail, and there is intercity rail.

    It would be nice to actually be able to move around Oregon, easily. And between urban areas, without a car. There is a lot of underused rail in the state that could be reused to improve connections between places – that might give an alternative to the car.

  47. “It would be nice to actually be able to move around Oregon, easily. And between urban areas, without a car.

    Why?

  48. However I also know that this is unusual – this train (Saturday evening) is usually much more lightly patronized (the Sunday evening train is much more busier) and this is the weekend after Spring Break in Oregon.

    The two staff members I talked to (about 10 days ago) said they’ve been much busier lately, since the gas prices jumped last.

    Even with an efficient car Amtrak was a lot cheaper than driving one person up and paying for parking when I figured it out. Even with the business class upgrade, it still was cheaper. Even with the cab fares I paid (to be fair I mostly walked), it still was cheaper.

    I don’t think gas prices will effect commuting at first nearly as fast as they’ll change peoples travel and recreational planning. Amtrak fits those categories very nicely.

  49. It would be nice to actually be able to move around Oregon, easily. And between urban areas, without a car. There is a lot of underused rail in the state that could be reused to improve connections between places – that might give an alternative to the car.

    There are also a LOT of links that don’t have rail, don’t need rail, and a public transit link could be provided TODAY if ODOT would purchase a fleet of MCI long haul busses that could provide a spider-web of public transit connecting the entire state.

    Those bus lines that see the largest ridership, would then be considered for a possible upgrade to rail service if hourly service still cannot keep up with demand. Right now there isn’t even decent, regular service between Portland, Salem and Eugene.

  50. Right now there isn’t even decent, regular service between Portland, Salem and Eugene.

    That does bother me. I’d much prefer an Amtrak like service, but anything somewhat reliable is better than nothing.

    I know it’s again your general theme, but the rail is already there, I’d rather see more Amtrak service than buses. Even if we have to add some passing areas or something…

  51. Erik,

    I had two days off and needed to do some errands in Hillsboro yesterday. Here’s how it went for me:

    – Took the #25 Cherriots bus to the Salem T.C.
    – Took the 1X SMART to Wilsonville
    – Took the 201 SMART to Barbur T.C.
    – Took the #12 TriMet bus to downtown
    – Took the Blue to Hillsboro

    Total Travel Time: 3 hours and 15 minutes

    Return Trip:

    – Took the Yamhill County LINK to McMinnville
    – Took the Yamhill County LINK to West Salem
    – Took the #25 Cherriots Bus to Salem T.C.
    – Took the #5 Cherriots Bus home

    Total Travel Time: 2 hours and 45 minutes

    Today I decided to take Amtrak: Total Travel Time about 1:15 minutes from Salem to Portland. The return trip, the train was late by over an hour!

    My observations:

    Why do these non TriMet buses stop short of a better destination? I.E. doesn’t the 201 just go a few more miles and connect to downtown? And why doesn’t the 1X continue past Wilsonville to at least Tualatin T.C. (or better yet downtown Portland)? With regard to the Yamhill County one, why does it leave you at Roth’s in West Salem instead of just going across the bridge to the T.C.?? Why why why? :-) At least I have an aircard on my laptop and so I could surf the net during this entire journey…. There really are no decent commuter options for Salem Portland but it’s O.K. for Salem to Wilsonville at least.

  52. I know it’s again your general theme, but the rail is already there, I’d rather see more Amtrak service than buses. Even if we have to add some passing areas or something…

    Dave, I’m not opposed to rail.

    It’s just that five busses can be added at a cost of about $2 million, and can be on the road as quickly as the busses can be ordered.

    To start commuter rail there are two route options – via the SP (already can handle passenger trains but is congested) or via the OE (needs major upgrading south of Wilsonville). Stations would have to be built on either line (on the SP the only stations that exist are Oregon City and Salem; on the OE it’s what’s being built for WES). You need equipment – a trainset will cost a minimum of $5 million (two car DMU set) and as much as $20 million for a locomotive/Bombardier bi-level car trainset.

    Should the long term forecast be for rail? Absolutely. I think that of anything, even my bus line. But do we really want to sit around and claim “we can’t do anything until we have $100 million to build a rail line”? Or can we make a small investment to start something – and grow it? That $2M for new busses won’t be wasted; in fact the $2M in busses – if allocated to rail – wouldn’t even buy ONE railcar. Yet for the same price we’re putting FIVE busses on the road. And even if, let’s say in five years we can get the rail – those five busses can then be put to work on connecting services – say, from Salem to Stayton and to Dallas. Or Portland-St. Helens, or to Banks and North Plains, or to Newberg and McMinnville.

  53. I’ve been thinking about JK’s comments. Most are in a literal sense true, but rarely do they include more extensive data points, nor do they take into account many relevant variables in their calculations.

    One example is the couple hundred dollars for a reliable car idea for his supposed .12-15 cents per mile myth.

    What someone should do, and post on this site, or on their own, is write up thorough and logical data driven statistical correlations between what his data says, and what is really happening with the data.

    Such as the fact that nobody is getting a car and going to be able to derive 12-15 cents per mile, or 25-30 or even 50-60 centers after full costs are included.

    Maybe I should even add a large entry on my blog and thoroughly debunk more of this nonsense about the mythical higher throughput, higher capability, cleaner automobile myth.

    As for the CRC angle and the sprawl inducement it would create, that would just be a sad situation.

    If people want to live there, THEY should be paying for the damned bridge. Excuse my harshness but the last thing I want to see, after spending 20 years of my life stuck in the hell hole of the auto-dependant car based lifestyles of the south, is a car focused dependancy getting built up by Californians and other “people imports” that keep moving to the area and wanting some mundane mediocrity of a lifestyle. Portland is an escape from that and hopefully we won’t let those people ruin it after so much hard work has been put into Portland.

  54. More companies should pack up and leave, too. Relocate them to where the people are moving to as to innecessitate a behemoth bridge.

  55. Excuse my harshness but the last thing I want to see, after spending 20 years of my life stuck in the hell hole of the auto-dependant car based lifestyles of the south…

    What an ironic statement. Many native Oregonians deride the opinion of “people imports” that have turned Oregon into what it is (i.e. Pearl District, South Waterfront, Old Mill District) – essentially big developer projects, and city councils who are in the same bed as developers – instead of what it was (a friendly, affordable place to live that was good for families and children, was not overpopulated, had plenty of industry, we didn’t constantly bicker over pipe dreams but we got the job done, and we didn’t need no McMansion – just a comfortable 1200-1500 square foot ranch house with a respectable but not oversized yard).

    Sellwood used to be a working-class neighborhood with a quaint little downtown area where all were welcomed. Today it’s an upscale neighborhood with local shops that if you’re not “hip” you’re stared at by shopkeepers wondering why you’re in “their” store.

    I’m a native Oregonian, living here in the Portland metro area all my life save for a six month stint in Idaho and a nearly three year stint in Montana. I have the birth certificate issued by Multnomah County – not Orange County – to back it up. Let’s face it – if it weren’t for these “people imports”, Westside MAX, Airport MAX and the Portland Streetcar wouldn’t even be necessary. And Interstate MAX would be a toss-up. The area between Beaverton and Hillsboro would still be farmland. Beaverton wouldn’t look like Santa Ana. Sherwood would still be a small sleepy town with only one traffic light at Six Corners, and a town known for the Robin Hood Festival, not Target and a mega-movie theater. Wilsonville would be home to feed dealers, not distribution warehouses. Tualatin would still be wetlands.

    Battle Ground would be a tiny town near an intersection of two two-lane highways, with maybe a couple thousand people at most, surrounded by farmland – not subdivisions. Hazel Dell would be a farming community, not a college town.

  56. “It would be nice to actually be able to move around Oregon, easily. And between urban areas, without a car.”

    Why?

    Gee, maybe because there are people who don’t own cars?

  57. The car ‘culture’ is doomed.

    Just a matter of time.

    1000 years from now they will look at our ‘culture’ of auto dependence/status the same way we now view the ‘cargo cults’ Papau New Guinea.

  58. They should start calling it TOS (Transit Oriented Sprawl). I can remember farmland all around Washington County. Now it looks just like Southern California! Now what do you suppose will happen when the MAX starts going to Wilsonville and points further south? More “transit oriented sprawl” and crackhouse condos.

  59. [They should start calling it TOS (Transit Oriented Sprawl). I can remember farmland all around Washington County. Now it looks just like Southern California!]

    What the [expletive deleted] are you trying to say?

    Southern California is the way it is because THERE IS NO TRANSIT!

    Transit had no role in determining the demographic of southern California

  60. Southern California is the way it is because THERE IS NO TRANSIT!

    Uh, Al, don’t make me list the transit agencies that operate in Southern California. ;-)

    In many places there are overlapping transit services, too. (Los Angeles is a good example, there is a city transit agency, a regional transit agency, then many surrounding cities operate their own transit services that sometimes handle local routes within Los Angeles, and then there’s SCRRA (“Metrolink”).)

    Of course, the Los Angeles basin used to have some really great transit systems that were rail-based (the Pacific Electric “Red Cars” and the “Yellow Cars” trolley lines come to mind). Then again I’m sure we’ll start up the whole “National City Lines” debate as to whether it was a conspiracy to remove these lines (nevermind it was the government agency MTA, not the NCL, that parked the last of the Red Cars – I have the video if anyone wants to borrow it.)

    By the way, The LACMTA received the “Outstanding Public Transportation System” award in 2006 (also known as “America’s Best Transit System”.) The Orange County Transportation Authority received the award in 2005. The San Francisco RTD received it in 2004. Santa Clarita Transit in 2002 and the “Big Blue Bus” of Santa Monica in 2000 (and previously in 1997, and again in 1992, and again in 1987.)

    TriMet received the award in 1988. Back when TriMet was predominately a bus system and had just opened one MAX line.

    There’s plenty of transit in Southern California. In fact I recall seeing a report that showed that the Los Angeles basin actually has a higher percentage of transit trips than Portland does. I think it’s that same report I alluded to in my previous post (the one that the bicyclists here in Portland love).

  61. [Uh, Al, don’t make me list the transit agencies that operate in Southern California.]

    I know that Erik, but LA was not PLANNED around transit, it was planned around CARS!

    The car is king in LA!

    Of course they have transit, hell its the second largest city in America isn’t it?

  62. Adron Says: I’ve been thinking about JK’s comments. Most are in a literal sense true, but rarely do they include more extensive data points, nor do they take into account many relevant variables in their calculations.
    JK: Appearently you missed: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/AAA_method.htm which has a line item comparison of the AAA (=IRS) cost of driving with real world.

    Adron Says: One example is the couple hundred dollars for a reliable car idea for his supposed .12-15 cents per mile myth.
    JK: Where did I say .12-.15 cents per mile total cost. That appears to be the cost of gas at 3.25/gal and 39 mpg which is well outside of the total cost, even a few yeas ago.

    Adron Says: What someone should do, and post on this site, or on their own, is write up thorough and logical data driven statistical correlations between what his data says, and what is really happening with the data.
    JK: Appearently you missed:
    DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/AAA_method.htm which has a line item comparison of the AAA (=Federal) cost of driving with real world.
    and various parts of :
    DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm

    Adron Says: Such as the fact that nobody is getting a car and going to be able to derive 12-15 cents per mile, or 25-30 or even 50-60 centers after full costs are included.
    JK: Wrong again, the FULL cost of driving an average American car is around $0.331 per vehicle mile, or $0.202 per passenger mile (using 2005 data, so add a bit for gas increase.)

    Note that this includes road construction and maintenance costs, while transit costs are usually reported as if roads/tracks were free.

    Thanks
    JK

  63. if it weren’t for these “people imports”

    ….then the only ones of us that would be here are those of Native American descent. Let’s face it: “native” is a clichéd term which carries little significance in most cases.

    People are going to move here. Things are going to change. The question is: do we have control over how they change? Some here suggest that (a) we don’t or (b) we shouldn’t. I think that we can and we should, and that this means demanding a more rational CRC project. To spend this sum of money on something that benefits a smaller percentage of the population than that which it harms is not rational.

  64. Lack of regulation means chaos.

    Trust human nature and the market?

    That’s not even DISNEYLAND thinking, that’s,

    TWILIGHT ZONE thinking.

    Bring back child labor, abolish the minimum wage (which is still slaves wages), bring back the 14 hour work day.

    The good old days huh?

    Before the Government decided to step in.

    The ‘free marketeer’ ideology is very dangerous ideology.

    I would prefer the anarchists any day of the week.

  65. ^ I was particularly a fan of the discrimination part, myself. That and only allowing white, land-owning males to vote!

    yeah! whoop-de-doo-da

  66. [I was particularly a fan of the discrimination part, myself. That and only allowing white, land-owning males to vote!]

    EXACTLY!

    People don’t realize the true nature of America and why it was really founded.

    The basic reason was the property owners of America did not want to pay taxes to the king of England.

    Then the constitution itself provided that the country would be run BY WHITE PROPERTY OWNERS ONLY!

    Originally you had to own property to vote.

    “All men are created equal” referred to WHITE CHRISTIAN MEN OF WORTH, nobody else.

    The whole idea of freedom has always been a lie about America. Your as free as your bank account.

    The ‘free marketeers’ are an extension of this original philosophy.

    Hey, if your a person of means, the system is great.

    For everybody else, your basically a slave, even though they have abolished whips and chains.

    Minimum wage workers are nothing but slaves.

  67. Bring back child labor, abolish the minimum wage (which is still slaves wages), bring back the 14 hour work day.

    All great ideas. Maybe that would innecessitate having millions of criminals from other countries living here illegally. Maybe we could get out of debt as a country this way. I think America needs to wake up and face the reality that the gluttony of the past 50 years has come to an end! That includes people who live in town and have no need whatsoever for farm equipment and large trucks.

  68. You said “HUH?”

    I was being cynical with the “farm equipment in town” comment. What I meant is that I think its completely unnecessary for people who are living in town to have big pickup trucks, jeeps and SUVs. If they are construction contractors, fine, but just look around sometime and observe how many huge rigs with single occupant. And then these same people whine and bellyache about their huge gas bills. One guy I work with says his commute from Eugene to Salem every day costing about $30. Well two issues with him – too far to drive and also driving a gas guzsler. Maybe only “Valley People” drive big rigs and everyone in Portland drives tiny cars but here it seems giant rigs are “en vogue”. I was driving a Silverado when I lived in Dayton for a short stint but I used ethanol, dang it!

  69. [What I meant is that I think its completely unnecessary for people who are living in town to have big pickup trucks, jeeps and SUVs. If they are construction contractors, fine, but just look around sometime and observe how many huge rigs with single occupant.]

    W-O-W

    I’m in complete and total agreement with you!

  70. Transit had no role in determining the demographic of southern California

    Really? They didn’t have streetcars that served the populations along most of the major boulevards that caused LA to grow the way it did from about 1900 to 1960?

    What about the current rail systems that they started on in the 1970’s? San Diego, for example, didn’t zone it’s downtown revitalization around it’s rail system, and SANDAG doesn’t reward localities with county funding for adding density near transit?

    They didn’t entice developers to build much denser residential condos in Mission Valley after the Trolley was routed through there?

    The sudden growth after the Trolley reached Santee wasn’t planned for either? Or the growth around SDSU that’s started right as the new train opened up under there?

    The city’s population hasn’t almost doubled since the Trolley was being planned? Oh, wait, LA and San Diego have both been planned around transit and cars.

    Yeah, the car is more visible, but Southern California’s growth most definitely has also been influenced by transit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *